Tim Spiess’s anti-Trinitarianism

(Be warned, tonight’s entry is looooooooooooooong)

I have read had numerous discussions with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have talked to Arians in various other places in various other forms. I have read a number of arguments against the Trinity. I do not think I have seen anything as profoundly ignorant, and I honestly mean that, as Tim Spiess of JesusFamilies.org on the Trinity.

The above is a link to the article on the website. The website was brought to my attention by a new member on the theology forum that I belong to. Now when I first read some of the writer’s stuff, I thought he was just crazy. However, I then read this article. I take the Trinity quite seriously and I must remember not to eat and drink while reading such stuff again for I thought I would choke a few times. The arguments were that bad. Spiess shows no understanding whatsoever of the Trinity. He does not address Trinitarian arguments and he does not show Trinitarian sources. Let’s start with this line he uses.

“Clearly one of Jesus’ main missions on his first coming was to reveal his Father as well as himself as the Messiah. If this be so, how can confusion and contradiction remain regarding knowing who Jesus is and who his Father is? We are not talking about an infinite aspect of God’s nature, but rather the issue of who God is. In the above sayings of Jesus, he CLEARLY distinguishes between his Father and himself.”

Bad news Tim. Trinitarians agree! Jesus is not the Father! He has fallen into the first major error that it seems all anti-Trinitarians make. They tend to always assume unipersonalism. By that, I mean that they assume that if God exists, he must be one person so that if you have one person referring to another as God, then the Trinity is refuted, or if Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father, which he does, then the Trinity is refuted.

This is simply begging the question. It cannot be held as an argument against Trinitarianism that more than one person is called God when Trinitarians agree. It cannot be called an argument against Trinitarianism when Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father. Trinitarians agree. Tim goes on though:

The most common version of the trinity doctrine states that “God is three separate persons yet is one Person; there is one God, yet this God is manifest in three Persons – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” Here is Dallas Theological Seminary’s definition of the trinity, “We believe that the Godhead eternally exists in three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and that these three are one God, having precisely the same nature, attributes, and perfections, and worthy of precisely the same homage, confidence, and obedience (Matt. 28:18–19; Mark 12:29; John 1:14; Acts 5:3–4; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 1:1–3; Rev. 1:4–6).”

I don’t know which version of the Trinity he’s reading, but it’s not one that I’ve heard of. I do not know any Trinitarian who knows what they’re talking about (I hate to say that for the church has lacked embracing the doctrine of the Trinity and many churchgoers are unaware of the proper idea of the doctrine and if pressed, would probably hold a more modalist view.) who would use that definition. He then brings up the DTS statement, which I would agree with. How can he say the contradictory view is the common view then? It is just horrendous to think that he says that we think three persons are one person. He continues this nonsense further.

Obviously the phrase “that these three [persons] are one God” is contradictory, in terms of reasoning and logic – 1 is 1, not 3. How can God be three Persons and those three persons also be one Person? A mild equivocation on this would be, “God is three persons yet one God”. Well, does God have the attributes of a Person e.g. communicates in a rational language; can reason, knows right from wrong, etc.? If the answer is “yes”, then you are right back at a pure contradiction instead of a guised contradiction. If you don’t like the term “person”, it does not change the basic contradiction, for it remains in statements like, “God is three, and yet these three beings are one being”; or, “God is three, yet He is also one.” No matter how you state it, what is being said is that three equals one.

“I am willing to believe that which I cannot see,

but I am not willing to believe that one equals three.”

I would that if Tim were going to write against us, he would just take one obvious idea. We are not equals. Arius was wrong, but he was educated and I do not think we could say he was an idiot. Most JWs I meet are intelligent people. They’ve just been duped into believing something false. However, it’s not contradictory. Just wrong. (It does contradict Scripture of course though.)

Trinitarians do not say 1 = 3. For Tim to say the Trinity is an obvious contradiction is not for Tim to reveal the Trinity doctrine as much as it is for him to reveal himself. We say that there are three persons and one being. We do not say three persons and one person or three beings and one being. Tim should at least check his sources. Does he not think anyone in church history ever stood up and said “Hey guys! I’ve just come to a conclusion! 1 is not equal to 3!” He would have been laughed at for his misunderstanding. Tim continues with a light idea of Trinitarian texting that shows that he most likely has not read any real book on the Trinity. (Pick up a copy of Robert Morey’s “The Trinity: Evidence and Issues.”)

Ask a Trinitarian for all the verses that plainly and clearly support the Trinitarian view. At the most, you will get maybe ten verses, and in fact there is not one verse in the entire bible that plainly states that God is three yet One [unless you point to 1 John 5:7, which is not found in ANY Greek manuscript before 1,000 AD…shouldn’t this fact cause one to ponder a bit?]. If you take away the 5 or so inferential verses, then there are about 3 or 4 verses that are used to establish the Trinitarian doctrine. Yet how many verses clearly contradict the Trinitarian view? There are hundreds. This is not a matter of a few verses clarifying or modifying a scriptural precept. Rather, it is a matter of hundreds of verses contradicting less than half a dozen. The burning question that needs to be answered is why do people cling to the half dozen or so, and reject the hundreds?

Tim needs to read church history some and realize how exegetical the Fathers were. They would have been amazed at the idea that there were hundreds of verses against the Trinity. I find the mention of 1 John 5:7 amazing. (Hardly any of us are surprised to hear that it’s most likely an add-on by a later author. Someone who doesn’t realize we study textual criticism though will jump up and down like they’ve found our achilles’ heel.)

God is either One, or not – this is a very simple and clear proposition. Should we rely on non-scriptural philosophies and psychological theories about the divided nature of God? When the Son says, “‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?‘” (Matt. 27:46), why can’t we receive the plain meaning? Why must we instead run to strange psycho-philosophical, “dual nature” explanations? Perhaps because we are hanging onto a tradition of men?

Sorry Tim. While multiple persons share the nature of God, they are not divided so that one person is 33.3% God any more than human nature is “divided” whenever anyone is born. I can also take the Scripture plainly as it is. When read plainly, it does not contradict Trinitarianism. Jesus calls the Father God and refers to him as his God. No joke! Jesus was a servant. Was he supposed to serve another besides YHWH?!

Please consider the following three syllogisms:

1. The trinity doctrine is contradictory, and if we believe it, we accept contradictions in the scripture about who God is. If we can accept contradictions in the scripture about who God is – a seemingly very important matter – then we should be able to accept contradictions about “lesser” doctrine.

For the record, this is not a syllogism in anyway that I can see. A syllogism has three propositions and only three terms that are each used twice. Tim is simply arguing from his mistaken assumption that his attempt to back was miserable.

2. God is infinite, thus we cannot really understand Him. Yet, we can know at some level, that He is infinite because we have language to express and communicate this truth – if this were not so, you could not comprehend what I just wrote. If we have language to have some understanding about even His infinite characteristics, should we not also be able to understand His revelation to us in His Son about Himself, and who He is?

If this is true, then His revealing of Himself should not contain contradictions, just like any other “major” doctrine in the scriptures.

While this is true, he has yet to show the view is contradictory.

3. The trinity doctrine is inherently contradictory e.g. God is Three yet One; and causes many scriptural contradictions. If the scripture teaches the trinity doctrine, then the scripture has contradictions about the most basic of things, who God is. Thus, either the trinity doctrine is wrong, or the scripture has contradictions about who God is.

Believing the trinity doctrine causes the person sincerely seeking truth to either accede that the scripture has contradictions regarding a self-professed “major” doctrine regarding God’s Person; or to conclude that the trinity doctrine is error; or both.

If this was true, he’d have a point, but the Trinity does not contradict itself or Scripture.

Now let’s turn to his use of Scripture.

The Trinitarian view is that while they (the Father and the Son) are separate persons, yet they are the same God. This view is irrational and contradictory and there are many hundreds of verses that plainly state that Jesus and his Father are not the same person. These verses, when using one step of deduction, contradict the trinity. In addition to these hundreds of verses, there are dozens of verses that without deduction plainly and positively contradict the Trinitarian concept of Jesus being the Most High God.

Does Tim even read what he says? He said earlier that the Trinitarian view is that God is three persons and one and he is now saying that the view says that Jesus and the Father are separate persons. He then says there are many verses that state Jesus and his Father are not the same person! Of course there are! That’s what we argue against! It’s modalism! I really find it saddening when someone rejects a doctrine and they’re just clueless on it, especially one that their soul rests on like the Trinity.

So what verses does he use?

“Then Jesus was led by the Spirit up into the wilderness, to be tempted by the Devil.” (Matthew 4:1)

James 1:13, says in part, “for God cannot be tempted by evil”. Jesus was tempted by the devil to do evil, so Jesus cannot be God the Most High.

Check the wording on this one. The word for tempted refers to temptations from within. Jesus was tempted from without. Five minutes with a Vine’s would have cleared this up.

“Jesus said to them, “

You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23)

So Jesus, being God, has not the authority to grant places of honor for his servants? Doesn’t it seem fairly obvious that this “Father”, that Jesus speaks of is “greater than” Jesus? And if Jesus is the Most High God, how could that be?

It’s quite simple. Jesus is the servant and while he is equal in essence, he does subject himself to the authority of the Father. Yet 1 Cor. 15:28 says there will be a time when the Son himself will be subject. (Which means he isn’t subject now. How does Tim explain that?)

Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God“. (Mark 10:18)

Jesus, sinless, yet in his humility, flatly denied that he was the Most High God. As always, he honored his Father above himself.

He did not deny it. He asked the man to see his own assumptions. He’s calling Jesus good and saying “That’s the title for God. Are you willing to give me that devotion?” Furthermore, if Jesus isn’t God, then he isn’t good. If he isn’t good, why trust him with my salvation?

“

Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will.” (Mark 14:36).

It is possible for the One Perfect God’s will to be divided?

The Trinitarian view is that Christ had a human nature and that nature was not looking forward to the cross, but it did willingly submit. Without a human will, he would not be fully human. If this is what Trinitarianism teaches, it cannot be an argument against it.

“‘My God, My God, why have your forsaken Me?‘” (Matt. 27:46)

God the Most High, has a God? The Most High God can forsake Himself?

Assumption of unipersonalism again. One person who is God talked with another person who is. This is what Trinitarianism teaches again, so it cannot be an argument against it.

“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father“. (Mark 13:32)

Jesus is the Most High God, but does not know something that his Father knows? A Trinitarian will cite verses to try and prove that Jesus is omniscient, yet how does the truth in this verse fit into that belief?

I will grant that this one I could understand someone having a hard time with. However, based on Philippians 2, we understand that Jesus being the servant forsook divine prerogative to use his attributes. He would not be privy to such knowledge as a human. Note though that if there are verses that say Jesus knows all things, which there are, then Tim needs to explain those.

“And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the LORD your God‘” (Luke 4:12)

Jesus resisted Satan’s temptation by saying that it would be sinful for him to tempt his Father. God can tempt Himself?

Again, Tim has the assumption of unipersonalism. Jesus came as a servant and he lived as a servant.

“Now it came to pass in those days that He (Jesus) went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God” (Luke 6:12).

The Most High God prays to Himself? The verse does not say, ‘Jesus talked with his Father’, but rather that he prayed to his God.

Which Trinitarians agree with. Jesus prayed to the Father because he is not the Father.

“Jesus asked him, saying, ‘What is your name?‘ And he said, ‘Legion,’ because many demons had entered him.” (Luke 8:30)

God can ask questions to elicit confessions from sinful men (“Adam, where are you?”) But what is the purpose of God asking a demon his name if he cannot repent of anything? In this instance, Jesus did not know his name, and yet the Most High God knows all things.

This one is just inane. What was the purpose of God asking Job questions if he could not answer them?

“And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as my Father bestowed one upon me“. (Luke 22:29)

The Most High God bestowed a kingdom upon Himself? Didn’t God already have control over all Kingdoms?

Nope. Jesus came as the servant and by living as a servant earned the right to be called Lord as Acts 2:36 declares. Again, the assumption of unipersonalism is intense.

“And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, he said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit‘”. Having said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:46)

God is spirit. The Holy Spirit is God’s spirit. Whose spirit was committed into the hands of the Father? If it was Jesus’, then there is division even in the spirit of God?

This is speaking of Jesus as a human. He was offering himself up to the Father as a perfect sacrifice and trusting himself to him.

“No one has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18 & 1 John 4:12)

What more can be said?

Isaiah 6, Exodus 24: 9-11, The Angel of the Lord passages, etc. There are numerous times in the Scripture that someone saw God. I would suggest he look at Spiros Zodhiates in “Was Christ God?” I’d also recommend a good commentary. (That follows on all of these verses)

“God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)

Jesus teaches that, “God is spirit”, not that God is flesh, and thus the truth that “No one has seen God at any time”.

Trintiarians say that Jesus is God. They do not say that the body of Jesus is God.

“

If you loved me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father’, for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

If Jesus is truly the Most High God, equal with his Father, than how can his Father be “greater” than he, in any respect? This is especially true in this context, as the context speaks nothing about physical things or his physical nature.

This greater is in function and not in nature. It’s the same way a husband is greater than his wife. In fact, there has to be some idea of comparison in mind even for the need to be said. Why do I need to say the Father is greater than I? It’s obvious. Jesus has shown great similarities just now though such as John 14:1 and John 14:9.

“But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break his legs.” (John 19:33)

The Almighty God, God the Most High, the Eternal One, died?

Yes. Death does not mean the cessation of existence. (If it does, Tim needs to explain Col. 1:17 and Hebrews 1:2.) The soul of Jesus was separated from the body of Jesus. What’s the problem?

I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Jesus is ascending to his “God”. How can the Most High God have a God?

Assumption of unipersonalism again.

“Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28)

Jesus will be made subject to God in the final consummation. How can the Most High God be made subject to Himself?

Will be. How does Tim explain that he is not now. Again, this assumes unipersonalism also.

“But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” (Acts 7:55-56)

How is it that the Most High God is either seated or standing next to Himself?

Can we all say it together now? Assumption of unipersonalism.

“…having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Heb. 1:4)

What does the Most High God need to inherit? Doesn’t He already own all things? The Most High God needed to obtain a more excellent name than the angels?

Jesus showed his right to be rule on this Earth by living the perfect life in submission to the Father. He has not just flaunted himself for all eternity as it were. His divine life and teaching show that he can rightly sit on the throne of David.

“Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” (Heb. 1:9)

Again, God the Most High has a God? Would it not be more reasonable to say that there is the Most High God, the Father, and His God-like Son?

No it wouldn’t. Notice also before this that the Son IS called God. There is a logos doctrine implicit throughout Hebrews. (The same doctrine in the Johannine prologue)

“…though He was a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And having been perfected…” (Heb. 5:8-9)

The Most High God needed to learn obedience? To whom? The Most High God needed to be perfected?

As a man, Jesus fully lived the human experience. Jesus never needed to experience obedience in Heaven as he did on Earth or learn in Heaven as he did on Earth.

“Then he (Jesus, the Lamb OF God) came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him (God the Father) who sat on the throne.” (Rev. 5:7)

The Most High God is taking a scroll from the Most High God?

All together now. We can all say it. (Note also that in Rev. 5:13-14, all creation worships him who sits on the throne and the lamb. The lamb is not included in the creation.)

Tim is done with Scripture so he then concludes:

This author has had quite a few people respond to this article who try to defend the trinity doctrine. Their main argument is that I can’t see that Jesus is both man and God, and if I would just see this ‘truth’, then I could see the trinity doctrine. My first response is that I was a trinitarian for 10 years and I had accepted that belief without questioning it.

Not only without questioning it, but without thinking about it. All of these are basic arguments really. Tim has not done any real study on the subject and he’s revealed that greatly.

The philosophy-teachings of the dual nature works quite well in defending the trinity doctrine, for one just switches back and forth between Jesus being man and God, depending upon the scripture passage being looked at. Unfortunately for the trinitarian, Jesus does NOT teach the dual nature concept. For the above citations of scripture, the trinitarian says that those passages refer to Jesus as man, not as God. The trinitarian just assumes the dual nature teaching and then fits the scripture into this teaching. Again, the problem with this is that the dual nature teaching/philosophy is not only NOT taught by Jesus, but in fact has no scriptural basis, but rather has contemporary psychological philosophy as its roots. Jesus nowhere says that he and his Father are the same person, and in fact, Jesus repeatedly – hundreds of times – distinguishes between himself and his Father as two separate people. As Jesus taught in John 4:24, God is spirit, and he no where qualified this to say that God as some point would also be flesh. John taught that Jesus manifest the Father, NOT THAT JESUS WAS THE FATHER. “God is spirit” is Jesus’ teaching regarding the nature of his Father, the Most High God. Only men wanting to justify their pet doctrines and nullify that truth say, ‘no, God is not just spirit, he is also flesh for he has a dual nature’.

Contemporary psychological philosophy? Where does he get this? This has been going on since the start of Christianity. It’s hardly anything contemporary. Again, Tim wants to stress that Jesus is not the Father. WE AGREE! (People. Someone who wants to say he’s making a case against the Trinity when he is clearly ignorant of it needs to be ashamed at this point.)

After much other nonsense that is the same-old, same-old, Tim makes this plea:

This author will fellowship with those who believe the Trinitarian view, and will not look at it as a high priority to convince them otherwise. Does this attitude extend the other way? In other words, will those who hold to the Trinitarian belief accept this author as a brother in the Lord when they find out that this author rejects the Trinitarian view? If they will not accept this author, but rather condemn him as a heretic or some other nasty label – and this in spite of the fact that this author has hundreds of scripture verses that support his belief – then what does that say about the Trinitarian belief and those who hold it so tightly?

Tim. I would be a friend, but I would NOT worship with you. Why? It’s simple. You do not worship the same Jesus I do. You do not worship the same God I do. I say Jesus is my Lord and God and you do not. How can there be any point of contact between us? You have zero verses to support your belief and it’s a shame.

Are you a heretic? Yes. You are. I make no bones about it. Why? Because Jesus came and said who he was and you deny him. Thus, you make the Son out to be a liar. What does it say about people like myself who hold that belief so tightly? It says that we value the Son and who he is and will do all we can in support of that.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on July 28, 2007 at 10:12 +00:00Jul and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Tim Spiess’s anti-Trinitarianism”

Please contact me via email. I just stumbled upon this site and read the entire post. I would really like to speak to the author of it…so if you please..I would appreciate an email as soon as you can. Thanks.

I like the article. I used to know Tim pretty well…we used to talk on the phone every week. He almost tricked me into leaving my family behind and coming to New York to join his cult. SERIOUSLY!! He has not had much success…THAT was a very scary part of my Journey. He is very slick and sly, I am surprised that he hasn’t captured more people in his net. His false humility charade just about turns you into a zombie…THIS guy is dangersous! I thank the Lord that he didn’t let me go. Have you looked at his other writings? Thanks, Dan

Yes, Tim sent something to me to my e-mail about his ministry in 2002. I’d never heard of Tim Spiess before. We talked on the phone for almost a year every week. When He’d bring up thoughts of the socalled modern translations of the Bible, I took a stand against it, but for the most part I’d bite my tongue as Tim talked about it. Tim introduced me to someone else via e-mail by the name of McKay. I told McKay that Tim had no use for the King James Version. McKay forwarded my e-mail to Tim. Later, I called Tim, and Tim bald me out good, and told me that He would not have fellowship again with me. Tim e-mailed me later and gave me an ultimatum that I study God’s grace to the believer, that I supposedly was trusting in works, which was a bald face lie. I have been saved by the blood and the Grace of God for almost 50 years. My bone of contention with him was: Tim is following the Alexandrian Cult started by the so called Church Father Origen in Alexandria, Changed manythings in his socalled Bible manuscript, and getting away from the Antiochian Syrian Byzantine text which the Authorized King James was taken from, better known as the textus receptus. Also Origen was the first Jehovahs Witness, as Origen believed the Lord Jesus was a created being. This false doctrine of Origen was passed on to Eusebius, and later to Arias, who received a great following of people in this false doctrine. I believe Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are from the Alexandrian Cult. Unfortunately many so called bible scholars steer clear of the King James version

Hello. I thought I’d address this fellow’s comments about my article on the trinity doctrine. If you look at my web site above, you will not find one word denigrating another person. You will find arguments against certain teachings, but you will not find slander and mean-spiritedness, for disciples of Jesus take him seriously when he says, “be careful how you judge others”, and, “treat others the way you want them to treat you”. Unfortunately, religious people who believe they will be commended by God for they doctrinal arguments, seem to make a habit of ignoring the above referenced teachings of Jesus and attacking people (versus considered and polite arguments against their teachings) whose thoughts differ from their own.

Let’s take a look at this author’s statements about ME (not about my thoughts on the trinity), a person he does not know, has never met, and has never made any attempt to communicate with. He says that I …

Why does a person need to slander and ridicule a person who’s teachings they disagree with? Why not just point out the errors without bashing the person? Did Jesus identify individuals by name and call them an idiot?

I hope a person who not only cares about truth, but also sees the important of doing what Jesus says regarding treating others the way you want to be treated, will question why this fellow must slander me instead of just pointing out what he thinks are errors in my beliefs.

In terms of Dan’s comments…yeah, I am dangerous with my lovely wife and 4 little children trying our best to follow the Light. How sad that people are so insecure in their own beliefs that they feel they must attack others.

What can I say about Bill? I guess I need to pay my membership dues to the Alexandrian cult?!

Tim: Hello. I thought I’d address this fellow’s comments about my article on the trinity doctrine. If you look at my web site above, you will not find one word denigrating another person. You will find arguments against certain teachings, but you will not find slander and mean-spiritedness, for disciples of Jesus take him seriously when he says, “be careful how you judge others”, and, “treat others the way you want them to treat you”.

Myself: And some of us know that if we’re caught in a teaching dangerous to our souls, we want to be called out on it entirely. Paul said some would come in like wolves and try to destroy the flock. Some of us act accordingly.

Tim: Unfortunately, religious people who believe they will be commended by God for they doctrinal arguments, seem to make a habit of ignoring the above referenced teachings of Jesus and attacking people (versus considered and polite arguments against their teachings) whose thoughts differ from their own.

Me: Never read Matthew 23 eh?

Tim: Let’s take a look at this author’s statements about ME (not about my thoughts on the trinity), a person he does not know, has never met, and has never made any attempt to communicate with. He says that I …

Me: Was any of this argued against? All I heard is “That’s mean.” Whether it is or not, what’s more important is if it’s true.

Tim: Why does a person need to slander and ridicule a person who’s teachings they disagree with? Why not just point out the errors without bashing the person? Did Jesus identify individuals by name and call them an idiot?

Me: Look at what he said to the Pharisees. “Have you not read?” He was calling them on their ignorance. Look at how Paul called the Galatians foolish. Jesus called the Pharisees blind. Read some of the ECF and see what they said about their opponents.

Tim: I hope a person who not only cares about truth, but also sees the important of doing what Jesus says regarding treating others the way you want to be treated, will question why this fellow must slander me instead of just pointing out what he thinks are errors in my beliefs.

Me: I hope someone interested in the truth will note that there was no attempt to deal with the post itself but to simply attack another person as being one is attacking.

Tim: In terms of Dan’s comments…yeah, I am dangerous with my lovely wife and 4 little children trying our best to follow the Light. How sad that people are so insecure in their own beliefs that they feel they must attack others.

Me: Yeah. You are. You’re denying the truth of Christ and it doesn’t matter what else you do outside of that. Now please don’t give another appeal to pity.

Tim: What can I say about Bill? I guess I need to pay my membership dues to the Alexandrian cult?!

Peace to you all!

Me: I guess so!

Now if you think the article is wrong Tim, I’d be glad to see you show up at TheologyWeb for discussion on the Trinity. The Tektonics section would certainly be an enjoyable place to have discussion….

Tim worships a false God and a false Jesus who was never revealed in the scriptures. In a nutshell, he believes only Jesus’ words in red in the New Testament are divinely inspired, the rest of the Bible is to be discarded. He is teaching lies in the name of God: we are taught in the scriptures to mark (expose) and avoid such people if they remain fixed in their errors (as Tim is).

When called out on his errors, Tim’s response is to accuse people of being unloving, rather than examining his doctrinal errors in humility. Only God knows the state of his soul but the fact that he is so persistent in his false doctrine, and so aggressive in trying to silence people who criticise him, makes one wonder if he ever had a genuine salvation experience at all. People who are genuinely saved care about the truth of the God who saved them as well as His love. And that truth is revealed in the Bible for all to see, from Genesis through to Revelation.

God bless you for standing up for the truth and speaking it with grace.

The beautiful Athanasian Creed clearly defines the Holy Trinity as co-eternal and co-equal. The explanation in current teachings of the concept has conveniently been reduced to “a mystery” by the “religious”. The Trinity was obviously present at the baptism of Jesus Christ – Matthew 3:13-17. In Anglicanism, belief in the Trinity is the FIRST of the 39 Articles of Religion.

Since Jesus Christ did not narrate Matt 3:13-17, the Creed, nor the 39 Articles of Religion, Mr Speiss would not recognize the Holy Trinity. I can only assume he recognizes the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion since both were instituted by Christ.